But she was far enough along to show?

 

The miscarriages I'm talking about are so early that half the time no one ever even knows they occur. Women think they're spotting, or it's just a heavy period.

Yes. Kennedy was Reagan's 3rd choice (although they were friends)

 

Stevens and Souter were predicted to be very conservative Justices, but this has not been the case.

But she was far enough along to show?

 

The miscarriages I'm talking about are so early that half the time no one ever even knows they occur. Women think they're spotting, or it's just a heavy period.

Don't remember as she was living in NKY at the time and I saw her about once every week or so and I was 8, 9 or 10.

 

I would just assume here but think if a female wanting to have a child and miscarried, that whether she find out before or after, it would still upset her.

Basically, Kennedy is exactly what I spoke about above.

 

Assuming McCain (or someone else) gets the nomination and wants to push through an anti-abortion candidate, they will likely meet stiff opposition by the Democratic held majority (if that holds true)

 

If I am correct, the result would be the Rep President having to "compromise" and get the best they could - likely a supporter of Roe v Wade

 

If a Democrat wins, and Congress stays Democrat - we could be looking at another William Brennan or William O Douglas appointed to the court.

Yes. Kennedy was Reagan's 3rd choice (although they were friends)

 

Stevens and Souter were predicted to be very conservative Justices, but this has not been the case.

Speaking of judges and Presidential appointments, did you see this thread?

 

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?t=120639

Were any of the justices that did not follow a conservative stance on the abortion issue a "compromise" choice because of a Democrat-controlled Congress/Senate?

 

Absolutely. It must be remembered that, although the president nominates candidates, the senate confirms (or fails to confirm) them. Any nominee must get a majority vote from the senate. Therefore, if the senate is controlled by the other party, the president must compromise to get a candidate confirmed. That clearly happened when Ford nominated Stevens who was actually a Democrat. It also happened when GHW Bush nominated Souter. Thus, the two liberal justices appointed by Republicans were, by necessity, compromises. The other two liberals, Ginsberg and Breyer, were nominated by Clinton.

 

Legally speaking, the real tragedy of the loss of the senate for strict constructionists (Conservatives) is that, when GW Bush makes any nominations to the federal bench (US District Court, US Circuit Court of Appeals, or US Supreme Court), they must now be compromises or the Democrats will not confirm them.

 

On the other hand, if a Democrat wins the White House, he/she will have a blank check to nominate liberals and will face only token opposition since, most likely, the Democrats will still control the US Senate. And, unlike Republicans, Democrats are painstakingly careful to nominate "thoroughbreds" who will carry out the agenda of the leftwing of society. The only weapon the Republicans will have is to make sure that the Democrats dont have 60 votes and to filibuster just as the Democrats have done to Bush. The problem? Republicans don't seem to have any backbone.

So, like I said, since upwards of 40% of ALL PREGNANCIES end in miscarriage early in the first trimester, about half occuring so early and inconspicuously that the woman never knows, should we react to this DAILY occurence as if a child had died?

 

Every 5.6 minutes someone is forcibly raped (per CrimeClock 2004). But since it happens so much, we should ignore it, and accept it as normal, rational, and logical.

 

:rolleyes:

Every 5.6 minutes a woman is forcibly raped (per CrimeClock 2004). But since it happens so much, we should ignore it, and accept it as normal, rational, and logical.

 

:rolleyes:

I don't get your point at all. Sorry.

 

My point is that if we as a society really treated every moment of conception as the 'birth' of a child, and could know every time a woman miscarried, we'd be totally paralyzed because it happens so often. Which, by my math, would be 4.5 miscarriages EVERY minute.

 

(20% of all diagnosed pregancies end in miscarriage, and an equal number of miscarriages occur in undiagnosed pregnancies. There are roughly 6 million diagnosed pregancies a year. 20% of 6 million is 1.2 million. 1.2 X 2 is 2.4. 2,400,000/365/24/60= 4.5.)

 

Miscarriage would be the leading cause of death. By quite a margin.

Absolutely. It must be remembered that, although the president nominates candidates, the senate confirms (or fails to confirm) them. Any nominee must get a majority vote from the senate. Therefore, if the senate is controlled by the other party, the president must compromise to get a candidate confirmed. That clearly happened when Ford nominated Stevens who was actually a Democrat. It also happened when GHW Bush nominated Souter. Thus, the two liberal justices appointed by Republicans were, by necessity, compromises. The other two liberals, Ginsberg and Breyer, were nominated by Clinton.

 

Legally speaking, the real tragedy of the loss of the senate for strict constructionists (Conservatives) is that, when GW Bush makes any nominations to the federal bench (US District Court, US Circuit Court of Appeals, or US Supreme Court), they must now be compromises or the Democrats will not confirm them.

 

On the other hand, if a Democrat wins the White House, he/she will have a blank check to nominate liberals and will face only token opposition since, most likely, the Democrats will still control the US Senate. And, unlike Republicans, Democrats are painstakingly careful to nominate "thoroughbreds" who will carry out the agenda of the leftwing of society. The only weapon the Republicans will have is to make sure that the Democrats dont have 60 votes and to filibuster just as the Democrats have done to Bush. The problem? Republicans don't seem to have any backbone.

 

I hope you're wrong about the last part. AFter the Dems obstruction I would say what's good for the goose. And they have set the precident.

I don't understand what the number of miscarages has to so with abortion. In the situation you describe the woman does not even realize she is pregnant. If she aborts then she not only knows she is pregnant she knowingly destroys the baby. Just because a so many miscarriages occur in no justification for aborting.

After The Civil Rights Act was passed Democrat President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their overwhelming support.

 

The Republican Party was formed by anti-slavery activists to combat the pro-slavery Democrats

 

The Ku Klux Klan was formed by radical Democrats who opposed equality for blacks.

 

In 1935 Democrats defeated an Anti-Lynching Bill supported and put forward by Republicans.

 

The 1924 Democrat National Convention in New York was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history. Dubbed the “Klanbake convention”, a minority of delegates attempted to condemn the presence of the Klan but was rebuked by the Klan supporting Democrat Majority.

 

On April 20, 1871 the Republican Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-Affiliated terrorist groups.

 

Ronald Reagan, a Republican, made history on November 2, 1983 by signing into law Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a National Holiday. This is the first and only Federal Holiday that recognizes a Black American.

How about some quotes from Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, the organization that the Democrats so strongly support:

 

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

 

"If we must have welfare, give it to the rich and not the poor."

 

"Organized charity itself is. . . the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents."

 

Abortion was designed to wipe out those that the Democrats claim they are protecting.

Stevens was a registered Republican when appointed to the high court. I think he still is.

 

Blackmun was appointed by Richard Nixon - He wrote Roe v Wade

 

Its just not as simple as political affiliation. The cushion provided by lifetime appointments allows Justices to show their true colors once on the court.

Stevens was a registered Republican when appointed to the high court. I think he still is.

 

Blackmun was appointed by Richard Nixon - He wrote Roe v Wade

 

Its just not as simple as political affiliation. The cushion provided by lifetime appointments allows Justices to show their true colors once on the court.

 

Stevens was a moderately liberal Democrat. Ford needed to compromise to get through the Democrat controlled US Senate that was ready to embarrass Ford after Watergate.

 

While you are correct that Blackmun wrote the majority opinion, associating the decision with President Reagan is a bit of a leap. I could point out that a compelling dissenting decision was written by Justice White. Justice White was appointed by Kennedy. Nonetheless, neither of those associations are pertinent. I would also add that Blackmun's opinion in Roe v Wade is poorly written. Lots of verbage. Lots of history going back to the Babylonians but very little substance. Read it sometime.

Yes. Kennedy was Reagan's 3rd choice (although they were friends)

 

Stevens and Souter were predicted to be very conservative Justices, but this has not been the case.

 

Actually, not true. Both were compromises because they had to clear Democrat controlled senates. While Ford knew what he was nominating (he wanted to avoid a fight), Bush was "hoodwinked" in regard to Souter, who was known as the "stealth candidate". Warren Rudman and his associates assured Bush that Souter was a Conservative. Warren Rudman and his associates were less than honest. Bush trusted the wrong group and we are all suffering because of it.

 

Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito were appointed to be conservative. So far, so good. Ginsberg and Breyer were appointed by Clinton to be liberal. They are thoroughbreds. Stevens was appointed to avoid a fight. Actually, he is even more liberal than expected but, as I said above, Ford neither wanted nor needed a fight. Souter is what he is but Bush failed to do a thorough investigation of his track record. Kennedy will, most likely, be the fifth vote in all closely decided social issues. As a devout Catholic, I feel sure that he personally opposes abortion. However, he, more than the others, has divorced his personal beliefs from his decisions. It is little consolation but he shows a tendency to be a little more conservative (strict construction)than liberal (broad interpretation) in his overall voting record.

 

Before I am called a narrowminded rightwinger, let me say that I am totally in favor of a woman's right to choose. She can choose whether or not to become pregnant. After that, another being must be protected. This belief is as much constitutionally based as it is religion based. I would cite, among other arguments, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The preborn are deprived of both.